Last night I raised an issue touched on by Senator Quinn today. It relates to section 43(5)(a)(ii), which says that the directors shall specify that they are of the opinion that "the company has complied with its relevant obligations in the financial year". That is the issue that bothered Senator Quinn, the question of there being something absolutist in the statement. What he said was fair, in the context of what I have just argued, that in asking directors to give their opinion, they cannot be absolutely certain that someone in the company is not being non-compliant. It might be helpful to insert words such as "as far as they can reasonably attest". That may not be the precise form of words needed. We should be simply asking for people's best judgment on the basis of the information that has come to them in the course of their work. We should not ask them to employ consultants, for example, to reassure them.